BARATARIA BAY, La.—Two years after the massive Gulf of Mexico oil spill, scientists say they're finding trouble with sick fish that dwell along offshore reefs and in the deep waters—especially in places where the oil spill hit the hardest. The scientists are unsure what's causing a small percentage of the fish they're catching to have large open sores and strange black streaks. ...

This is a hoax just like global warming. Scientists will do anything to undercut business interests. BP and other oil companies would never do anything that really harms the environment. These liberal scientists just want to stop American progress. Who cares if fish are sick, anyway? After all, they are just fish.

Funny they don't mention this in those ads from BP to come on down to the Gulf, everything is wonderful. I remember the water quality was pretty poor years ago on a quick visit to Galveston - I can't image what its like now.

For now scientists can't say for sure if the spill is the cause or if it's normal to find this number of sick fish.

This quote and the article headline, "Fish are sick where BP"s oil spill hit" is suggesting that the oil spill is the cause. No such scientific evidence exists. This is nothing more than the liberal news media attempting to push its environmental agenda down the throats of the public with its insinuations rather than honest reporting.

For now scientists can't say for sure if the spill is the cause or if it's normal to find this number of sick fish.

This quote and the article headline, "Fish are sick where BP"s oil spill hit" is suggesting that the oil spill is the cause. No such scientific evidence exists. This is nothing more than the liberal news media attempting to push its environmental agenda down the throats of the public with its insinuations rather than honest reporting.

Will you cannot just say that.These fish did not have sores and black streaks before the accidentNow they do.What else happened down there that could have caused this. When was the AP liberal media?

IF you want to stick your head in the sand that is your world but when a tornado plants your but in a tree you might thinks again.

Just remember that breathing clean air and drinking clean water is something I want to keep for my grandchildren. It concerns me that people like you would throw it away.

For now scientists can't say for sure if the spill is the cause or if it's normal to find this number of sick fish.

This quote and the article headline, "Fish are sick where BP"s oil spill hit" is suggesting that the oil spill is the cause. No such scientific evidence exists. This is nothing more than the liberal news media attempting to push its environmental agenda down the throats of the public with its insinuations rather than honest reporting.

Will you cannot just say that.These fish did not have sores and black streaks before the accidentNow they do.What else happened down there that could have caused this. When was the AP liberal media?

IF you want to stick your head in the sand that is your world but when a tornado plants your but in a tree you might thinks again.

Just remember that breathing clean air and drinking clean water is something I want to keep for my grandchildren. It concerns me that people like you would throw it away.

This article, didn't say, "These fish did not have sores and black streaks before the accidentNow they do." It said it didn't know "if it's normal to find this number of sick fish". In other words, they don't know so how do you know? Where is your evidence?

For now scientists can't say for sure if the spill is the cause or if it's normal to find this number of sick fish.

This quote and the article headline, "Fish are sick where BP"s oil spill hit" is suggesting that the oil spill is the cause. No such scientific evidence exists. This is nothing more than the liberal news media attempting to push its environmental agenda down the throats of the public with its insinuations rather than honest reporting.

Will you cannot just say that.These fish did not have sores and black streaks before the accidentNow they do.What else happened down there that could have caused this. When was the AP liberal media?

" It said it didn't know "if it's normal to find this number of sick fish". In other words, they don't know so how do you know? Where is your evidence?

While I would agree with you that 90% of what you read anymore has to be taken with a grain of skepticism and I am willing to wait till they find an answer before I place blame; I sure as hell wouldn't want to eat the fish there after seeing unknown toxins on television day after day intentionally being pumped into the Gulf.

For now scientists can't say for sure if the spill is the cause or if it's normal to find this number of sick fish.

This quote and the article headline, "Fish are sick where BP"s oil spill hit" is suggesting that the oil spill is the cause. No such scientific evidence exists. This is nothing more than the liberal news media attempting to push its environmental agenda down the throats of the public with its insinuations rather than honest reporting.

Will, you're a smart guy, do you really believe that everything in regard to environmentalism is part of some anti business conspiracy? Your posting history and our many friendly jousts on this forum suggests you might.

Had the environmental movement and the incredible air and water pollution threats of the 1970's not inspired Dick Nixon to establish the EPA and Congress to establish the Clean Air and Water Acts, We would have thousands more highly polluted Love Canals, flaming Cuyahoga rivers and acid rain killed forests and dead lakes and streams by this time had these steps not been taken. Industry and corporations simply can't be trusted to police themselves and to do both the initial and follow up research spoken of in this article. There is no benefit for their bottom line to do so, in fact the contrary is likely true. Tobacco company research proved the dangers of cigarette smoking but was then buried in the interest of that corporate bottom line. Extraction companies have actually funded think tanks to produce non peer reviewed, deliberately misleading research to dispute AGW.

BP has been a much more responsible corporate player but I doubt it can be expected to spend money on research that might lead to yet more lawsuits and recrimination. That's where government and independent researchers serve a public good. I contend that if a shadowy conspiracy exists, it is more likely in the form of a band of corporate giants than it is in a relatively transparent and much smaller and more poorly funded environmental movement.

For now scientists can't say for sure if the spill is the cause or if it's normal to find this number of sick fish.

This quote and the article headline, "Fish are sick where BP"s oil spill hit" is suggesting that the oil spill is the cause. No such scientific evidence exists. This is nothing more than the liberal news media attempting to push its environmental agenda down the throats of the public with its insinuations rather than honest reporting.

Will you cannot just say that.These fish did not have sores and black streaks before the accidentNow they do.What else happened down there that could have caused this. When was the AP liberal media?

" It said it didn't know "if it's normal to find this number of sick fish". In other words, they don't know so how do you know? Where is your evidence?

While I would agree with you that 90% of what you read anymore has to be taken with a grain of skepticism and I am willing to wait till they find an answer before I place blame; I sure as hell wouldn't want to eat the fish there after seeing unknown toxins on television day after day intentionally being pumped into the Gulf.

I'm not blaming the scientists. They said they don't know if it's normal to find this number of sick fish. There are sick fish anywhere in any body of water. It's the media I blame for headlining this story as if it where a fact that oil pollution is the cause.

One of the most graphically destructive and long-term manmade environmental disasters in recent history, and where are the legions of "environmental" organizations calling for Obama's figurative head on a plate for allowing this to happen?

AngusSomerled wrote:One of the most graphically destructive and long-term manmade environmental disasters in recent history, and where are the legions of "environmental" organizations calling for Obama's figurative head on a plate for allowing this to happen?

Their silence is deafening.

I am unrelenting critique of Obama. However, he did not allow this disaster to happen. This disaster was an engineering failure with a variety of causes. Obama critics lose credibility by blaming him for problems that he did not cause or contribute.

I have been highly critical of Obama's response to the disaster particularly the onerous regulatory regime put in place after the disaster. I think some regulatory revisions were warranted but not the overkill put in place by Obama.

The fishing studies are important although the results are somewhat unclear due to lack of control over other sources of contamination. Still, I think the studies provide a good baseline for future disasters. Hopefully, future disasters will not occur. If they occur, the firms and government should be better prepared to deal with the spill and its aftermath.

I know someone who does a whole lot of fishing off Texas and hasn't seen any of this. Must not be too wide spread. They should look into the dispersant used to try to break up the oil rather than the oil itself.

Someone on the right please explain to me how you can rationalize that scientists are liberals and that we should not err on the side of safety in matters of our environment and water standards. Everything is not a conspiracy of the left. The non thinking is astounding!

Arguing with a conservative is like playing chess with a pigeon. You get angry. The pigeon embarrasses itself by cra*ping on the board, knocks over the pieces, then flies off to tell its friends how it won the game.

AngusSomerled wrote:One of the most graphically destructive and long-term manmade environmental disasters in recent history, and where are the legions of "environmental" organizations calling for Obama's figurative head on a plate for allowing this to happen?

Their silence is deafening.

I am unrelenting critique of Obama. However, he did not allow this disaster to happen. This disaster was an engineering failure with a variety of causes. Obama critics lose credibility by blaming him for problems that he did not cause or contribute.

I have been highly critical of Obama's response to the disaster particularly the onerous regulatory regime put in place after the disaster. I think some regulatory revisions were warranted but not the overkill put in place by Obama.

The fishing studies are important although the results are somewhat unclear due to lack of control over other sources of contamination. Still, I think the studies provide a good baseline for future disasters. Hopefully, future disasters will not occur. If they occur, the firms and government should be better prepared to deal with the spill and its aftermath.

For now scientists can't say for sure if the spill is the cause or if it's normal to find this number of sick fish.

This quote and the article headline, "Fish are sick where BP"s oil spill hit" is suggesting that the oil spill is the cause. No such scientific evidence exists. This is nothing more than the liberal news media attempting to push its environmental agenda down the throats of the public with its insinuations rather than honest reporting.

Will you cannot just say that.These fish did not have sores and black streaks before the accidentNow they do.What else happened down there that could have caused this. When was the AP liberal media?

" It said it didn't know "if it's normal to find this number of sick fish". In other words, they don't know so how do you know? Where is your evidence?

While I would agree with you that 90% of what you read anymore has to be taken with a grain of skepticism and I am willing to wait till they find an answer before I place blame; I sure as hell wouldn't want to eat the fish there after seeing unknown toxins on television day after day intentionally being pumped into the Gulf.

I'm not blaming the scientists. They said they don't know if it's normal to find this number of sick fish. There are sick fish anywhere in any body of water. It's the media I blame for headlining this story as if it where a fact that oil pollution is the cause.

because swimming around in oily slim, and trying to absorb oxygen from it is so healthy